Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Is Losing an Election Reason Enough To Not Keep A Promise?

So Hillary Clinton lost the election and she disappeared into the woods until a few days ago. Now that her month of soul searching is over what is she going to do about all those promises she made? Will she attempt to keep them?

She could still have an effect on the world, even as just a private citizen. This article brings up some very good points about losing politicians. They seem to just give up after losing. It points to Al Gore just disappearing after his loss to George W. Bush and again to John Kerry. Both made a ton of promises as presidential candidates but pretty much gave up on those promises when they lost.

So, will Hillary Clinton do the same? Is her life of public service over?

Hillary Clinton Thinks Successful Business People Could Make a Suitable Running Mate

Sec. Clinton has announced that she will include those outside of politics for a running mate.

In choosing a running mate, Mrs. Clinton said she would seek, above all, someone prepared to be president and “someone you can work with — someone you believe will be a good partner.”

Source: Hillary Clinton Warns Against Treating Donald Trump as ‘Normal’ Candidate – The New York Times

Someone like Lloyd Blankfein, perhaps?

There is a very good reason for Sanders to remain in the race until the end.

I like this article. It does a very good job of explaining the Super-delegates purpose and why they should not be counted until the convention. Their vote is suppose to be fluid. It also explains the scenarios by which it would make sense for the Super-delegates to get on the Sanders’ bandwagon.

What makes 2016 very different from 2008 is that the following items are presently true:

  • Sanders has dramatically higher favorable ratings than Clinton, despite months of attacks from his Democratic opponent and Trump and GOP super-PACs generally laying off both Sanders and Clinton;
  • Sanders beats Donald Trump nationally by much more than does Clinton (12 points, as opposed to 6 for Clinton, in an average of all national polls);
  • Sanders beats Donald Trump in every battleground state by more than does Clinton; and
  • Sanders beats Trump by 22 points among independents, while Clinton loses independents to Trump by 2 points.

As we sit here today, the Clinton-Trump match-up in the three biggest battleground states — Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, the loss of all three of which would lose the Democrats the general election — is a dead heat.

Source: Bernie Sanders Could Still Win the Democratic Nomination — No, Seriously

I do not have a lot of confidence in Sanders becoming the Democratic nominee. I also don’t have a lot of confidence in Clinton being able to beat Trump in the general election. It seems that the DNC has signed a suicide pact with Clinton.

Here’s a question to ask yourself….

Nate Robinson brings up a great point in his article:

Trump’s political dominance is highly dependent on his idiosyncratic, audacious method of campaigning. He deals almost entirely in amusing, outrageous, below-the-belt personal attacks, and is skilled at turning public discussions away from the issues and toward personalities (He/she’s a “loser,” “phony,” “nervous,” “hypocrite,” “incompetent.”) If Trump does have to speak about the issues, he makes himself sound foolish, because he doesn’t know very much. Thus he requires the media not to ask him difficult questions, and depends on his opponents’ having personal weaknesses and scandals that he can merrily, mercilessly exploit.

This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, “We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.

Source: Current Affairs | Culture & Politics

So the question boils down to this, do you want to see Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee for president or do you want to keep Donald Trump out of the White House.

Peter Daou Has a Problem Seeing Reality

Peter Daou has a problem seeing where the problem really is. Well, that’s to be expected he’s been advising Sec. Clinton for a while and you don’t maintain that job without polishing her image.

Why on earth would Bernie Sanders run a campaign premised on the destruction of Hillary’s public image?

As we’ve written: Hillary let Bernie off the hook in the last debate. She could have asked him a simple question: Does he believe President Obama is corrupt because of financial industry contributions? It’s a yes or no question that is central to the 2016 race.

Does Bernie think President Obama is compromised by Wall Street contributions? If so, he should have the courage to say it. If not, he shouldn’t imply that a female candidate would be influenced by donations or speaking fees. There’s a word for that.

Source: Bernie’s Dark Side: The Reckless War on Hillary’s Integrity – Blue Nation Review

First, Bernie isn’t running a campaign premised on the destruction of Hillary’s public image. He’s running a campaign premised on the fact that Wall Street is running amok and compromising our political system with campaign contributions and lobbying for special treatment. This is also a premise that Sec. Clinton claims to accept but only after millions of Wall Street dollars have poured into her family’s foundation and into Super PACs created to put her into the presidency.

Sanders has built his campaign on fighting Wall Street and and its corrupting influence. Are you, Mr. Daou, suggesting that the Sanders campaign should change their tune just because Sec. Clinton appears to have been corrupted by Wall Streets influence? By the way, that is my question, not Sen. Sanders.

Maybe had she not taken millions of dollars from Wall Street she wouldn’t be in this predicament. Don’t blame Sen. Sanders for Sec. Clinton’s apparent corruption.

Yes, There Is A Pragmatic Case for Bernie Sanders

I’ve been trying to explain to people that Hillary Clinton is not the person to nominate as a fire break against the Republicans. Hillary is not the electable candidate. She will not get out the vote like Bernie Sanders will in the general election and she fares worse than Sanders in head to head polling against Republicans.

Chis Cook, in the Atlantic, agrees with me.

On the pragmatics of electability, nearly every major national poll consistently shows Sanders equaling or bettering Clinton against all Republicans. Polls show Sanders nearly tied with Clinton nationally and rising. On electability, if anything, Sanders has the edge right now. There is nothing empirical to suggest Clinton’s superior electability—quite the contrary given her loss to Barack Obama in 2008 and her flagging campaign this year. While Clinton might gain more moderate Independents (particularly against a polarizing Republican nominee), Sanders can inspire massive Democratic and liberal Independent turnout and likely win over many white working-class swing voters.

Source: The Pragmatic Case for Bernie Sanders – The Atlantic

Sanders is attracting young people to the primaries and caucuses in numbers not seen since Kennedy ran for the Democratic nod in ’59. Young people are notorious for not showing up at the polls unless there is someone running who  excites them. Hillary Clinton may be married to the most charismatic president since Reagan but she isn’t the charismatic one and she doesn’t excite young people to get out to vote unless those young people are young Republicans and their vote is against her.


A mote in Sanders’ eye?

The Clinton campaign is being sick and tired of all the scrutiny they are facing and the evidence of hypocrisy, ties to the banking industry and other ethical issues this is bringing forward. So they are pointing their fingers at the Sanders campaign and saying, “what about him?”

“There’s a lot of stuff that comes out about Hillary. She’s been scrutinized, scrutinized, scrutinized. I don’t see any of that about Bernie coming out—and there are things,” said Barbara Marzelli, who runs a gardening business in New Hampshire. “It’s like everybody’s throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. They haven’t started to fling spaghetti at Bernie.”

Source: Hillary Clinton and Her Allies Are Starting to Openly Question Bernie Sanders’ Integrity | TIME

That’s all well and good but what happens when you scrutinize someone and all you can find is extremely minor stuff like accepting campaign money from the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, which accepted money from Wall Street, while claiming not to have received money from Wall Street.

I think he can stand up to the scrutiny but I wonder about the spin.

However, how can the Clinton campaign honestly scream about the mote in Sanders’ eye while she has a log in her own eye?

She was against it before she was for it.

Dan found this and I wanted to share it.

Okay, I understand that people can change their position after reconsidering everything but she seems to reconsider her positions an awfully lot and waivers between those positions as it’s convenient. She swings from week to week between being a moderate and being a progressive.

Money For Nothing? I don’t think so.

Hillary Clinton is pushing real hard to be recognized as a progressive while she battles against Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination for President. She’s also trying to keep hold of the “moderate” label as well so she can move into that should she win the nomination. However, that progressive label is hard to apply to someone who has taken so much money from Wall Street.

In fact, only Jeb Bush has accepted more donations from the financial sector than Sec. Clinton during this election cycle and those donations have fallen off in favor of Marco Rubio. Rubio still lags Clinton in donations from the bankers.

When we look at the latest FEC reports we find out the following interesting facts:

  • “In all, donors from Wall Street and other financial-services firms have given $44.1 million to support Hillary Clinton’s campaigns and allied super PACs, compared with $39.7 million in backing that former president Bill Clinton received from the industry.”
  • “Only about $75,000 of the $75 million Sanders has raised for his 2016 campaign has come from donors in the finance sector.”
  • “With the $21.4 million that Wall Street has given for her current White House bid, Clinton is on track to quickly exceed the nearly $23 million that she raised in her three previous campaigns combined from the PACs and employees of banks, hedge funds, securities firms and insurance companies.” (Read the full story here.)

Source: The Daily 202: Hillary Clinton makes her Wall Street problem worse – The Washington Post

That’s a lot of money to be spent not to expect some form of return. How does that reflect any progressive credentials?

Check Your Premises

Carl Woodward had a very interesting article in the Baltimore Post-Examiner last week. He made a very clear point that I fully agree with that for the next several election cycles the Republicans will retain control of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Any Democratic President is not going to be able to push much, if any,  of a legislative agenda.

He illustrates that with the following:

“Every young man or young woman should be automatically registered to vote when they turn 18,” she said, adding that states should also offer at least 20 days of early in-person voting.

The proposal is being hailed by liberals as “a huge reform” (Ari Berman), a “big big move” (Greg Sargent), and a “major step” (Andrew Prokop). Not only would it instantly remove a major obstacle to voting for around 50 million Americans by adding them to the rolls – it would also shift the balance of likely voters to the considerable advantage of Democrats. Americans in general are significantly more progressive than our subset of likely voters.

Source: Democrats should demand executive actionBaltimore Post-Examiner

And follows up with asking exactly how is she going to achieve this goal with a Republican led Congress and he’s got that exactly right. However, she couldn’t have done much to achieve this goal of automatic voter registration and 20 days of in-person voting even with a Democratic controlled House and Senate. States set these election laws, not the federal government. Ms Clinton is basing this campaign plank on a false premise.

That’s a false premise Ms Clinton made. There are other false premises in this article. When I read it I didn’t have time to go into detail so I tweeted:

Again, the president having the power to change voting laws isn’t a false premise of Mr. Woodward’s but it is a false premise that was quoted in the article. I bring that up mostly because people tend to think mostly about Federal legislation and look to the Feds for regulating voting, guns and marriage but in truth the states hold almost all the power in those realms. The Feds are there to keep the states honest and to ensure that state laws are applied with equality to all citizens of a state.

The false premises that I found that were Mr. Woodward’s are found in the following passage in that article:

The crucial difference with executive action: it’s actually possible. The attempt, at least, can be absolutely guaranteed.  And the potential is enormous: consider the executive’s considerable discretion over matters of enforcement, her power to pardon, her control of military affairs and foreign policy, and so on.

Executive actions are limited to how existing laws are administered. Executive actions can’t create new law nor can executive actions create new programs. Executive actions set priorities, policies and procedures for enforcement of laws passed by congress and programs created by congress. It is a false premise that executive powers reach anywhere the magnitude of legislative powers.

There is a false premise that just because the president orders something that is within his or her power to order that there will be funding available to carry out that order. There is also the false premise that the executive power over foreign policy is any more than just a leadership position. Agreements with foreign powers must be ratified and funded by Congress.

While I generally agree with Mr. Woodward’s assessment of Ms. Clinton’s campaigning, she is being completely dishonest in presenting her platform as anything more than a pipe dream, using executive powers in a Democratic administrative with a powerful Republican Congress isn’t the silver bullet he makes it out to be.

Whoever becomes the Democratic president (and I’m not at all confident that will be Hillary Clinton) in that environment has only one hope of moving their agenda will be by working along the fissures in the GOP. There are at least three factions of the GOP find a way to get a lever in the cracks and exert pressure.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported.